Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
And 42mm. Disclaimer. 42mm looks larger in picture than in real life :)

Based on only seeing the picture and this is my own personal opinion, that looks way too big on you. I'd say go for the 38mm.

I have similar sized wrists to you and was debating between the two sizes for quite a while for the larger real estate etc but eventually decided on the 38mm as it would just look better on me. But of course, it's your choice. Let us know what you choose :)
 
Based on only seeing the picture and this is my own personal opinion, that looks way too big on you. I'd say go for the 38mm.

I have similar sized wrists to you and was debating between the two sizes for quite a while for the larger real estate etc but eventually decided on the 38mm as it would just look better on me. But of course, it's your choice. Let us know what you choose :)

I think the 38mm looks better too, but it's always fun to have wishful thinking! Hopefully we can gain the needed insight after trying both on!

----------

My wrist is same as your size and after trying each size I'm leaning towards 38mm. The extra screen size would be nice but I feel the 38mm looks better.

I agree. We will see conclusively after trying both on, though!
 
I also measure 177mm. Was going to go with the 42 until I did the cutouts. The 42 actually made me laugh when I tried it on --- reminded me of a watch that was wearing a human. The 38 looked fine, so I dug out 4 old watches to compare and the 38 was actually larger than 3 of them. So I guess I'm just one of those guys who prefers a smaller size. My advice: Go with the one that doesn't make you laugh.:D
 
I think Apple's wrist measurement include the watch height. Unfortunately, I think that only leaves you with the classic buckle which would (just) fit.

I don't think it does. There is no sense in doing that. The band measurements are for just the band only and don't include the height of the watch in my opinion.
 
Wrist size ?, 38 or 42

I don't think it does. There is no sense in doing that. The band measurements are for just the band only and don't include the height of the watch in my opinion.


Well we will find out Friday. But your logic makes no sense.

Hey, these bands will fit wrists between 130-180mm. Oh, but that's after you've made deductions. They don't actually fit wrists between 130-180mm even though we clearly put 'fits wrists 130-180mm'. We're just messing with you.
 
Well we will find out Friday. But your logic makes no sense.

Hey, these bands will fit wrists between 130-180mm. Oh, but that's after you've made deductions. They don't actually fit wrists between 130-180mm even though we clearly put 'fits wrists 130-180mm'. We're just messing with you.

My logic makes perfect sense. Why on earth would they include the height of the watch in length measurement of the bands.
 
My logic makes perfect sense. Why on earth would they include the height of the watch in length measurement of the bands.

Because using that logic, the smallest size possible would be 168mm, which is pretty large. They would be ignoring a huge part of the population, which they aren't.
 
Well we will find out Friday. But your logic makes no sense.

Hey, these bands will fit wrists between 130-180mm. Oh, but that's after you've made deductions. They don't actually fit wrists between 130-180mm even though we clearly put 'fits wrists 130-180mm'. We're just messing with you.

Sorry I miss read the post. I thought it said otherwise. Yes the length of the bands must include the height of the watch as it forms part of what goes around the wrist. Apologies.
 
My logic makes perfect sense. Why on earth would they include the height of the watch in length measurement of the bands.


No, it makes no sense.

The 38mm watch with S/M sports band. The entire thing will fit wrists 130-180mm. It's as clear as that.

If you had to deduct case size, they would say that.
 
Because using that logic, the smallest size possible would be 168mm, which is pretty large. They would be ignoring a huge part of the population, which they aren't.

Right. I posted that I miss read the post. The band lengths would already include the height of the watch.
 
Sorry I miss read the post. I thought it said otherwise. Yes the length of the bands must include the height of the watch as it forms part of what goes around the wrist. Apologies.


Oops, just seen your post. Apologies if I came across as rude at all, I didn't mean too :)
 
My logic makes perfect sense. Why on earth would they include the height of the watch in length measurement of the bands.

By your logic, since I have 175mm wrists, I can not get a 42mm :apple:Watch due to it being too big. Again, by your logic, the smallest combination available in 42mm would be the Sport Band or Link Bracelet, which are both listed at 140mm at their smallest. So 42mm + 140mm = 182mm... your logic is wrong.

Edit: OP has seen the light, ignore this.
 
I can't be the only one thinking the 42mm would look ridiculous on some (even a male's :rolleyes:) wrists?

That first shot shows the watch loosely attached and viewed on the side of his wrist. Most people wear their watches on the top of their wrist where it is wider.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.